.' It held that the appropriate rule is that"the infant and his parent or guardian will receive a petition only reciting a conclusion of delinquency. Our information about the proceedings and the subsequent hearing on June 15, derives entirely from the testimony of the Juvenile Court Judge, ["Judge McGHEE has set Monday June 15, 1964 at 11:00 A.M. as the date and time for further Hearings on Gerald's delinquency"At the appointed time on Monday, June 15, Gerald, his father and mother, Ronald Lewis and his father, and Officers Flagg and Henderson were present before Judge McGhee. 80-81.The Nat'l Crime Comm'n Report recommends that "Juvenile courts should make fullest feasible use of preliminary conferences to dispose of cases short of adjudication." The judge also testified that he acted under ARS § 8-201-6(d), which includes in the definition of a "delinquent child" one who, as the judge phrased it, is "habitually involved in immoral matters." Notice here was neither timely nor adequately specific, nor was there waiver of the right to constitutionally adequate notice. Judge Marion G. Woodward, letter reproduced in 18 Social Service Review 366, 368 (1944). the statements were involuntary, but because they were untrustworthy. . ARS § 8-224.

But with lawyers come records of proceedings; records make possible appeals which, even if they do not occur, impart by their possibility a healthy atmosphere of accountability. "A "petition" was filed with the court on June 9 by Officer Flagg, reciting only that he was informed and believed that "said minor is a delinquent minor and that it is necessary that some order be made by the Honorable Court for said minor's welfare." The Court has, even under its own premises, asked the wrong questions: the problem here is to determine what forms of procedural protection are necessary to guarantee the fundamental fairness of juvenile proceedings, and not which of the procedures now employed in criminal trials should be transplanted intact to proceedings in these specialized courts. [ case. [We reiterate this view, here in connection with a juvenile court adjudication of "delinquency," as a requirement which is part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution. The 1965 Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, "Law Enforcement -- A Report on Equal Protection in the South," pp. Lehman, A Juvenile's Right to Counsel in a Delinquency Hearing, 17 Juvenile Court Judges Journal 53, 54 (1966). The court held that there is no right to a transcript because there is no right to appeal and because the proceedings are confidential, and any record must be destroyed after a prescribed period of time. [ juvenile records. Speaking of procedural safeguards in the Bill of Rights, he says:"These factors in combination suggest that legislatures may properly expect only a cautious deference for their procedural judgments, but that, conversely, courts must exercise their special responsibility for procedural guarantees with care to permit ample scope for achieving the purposes of legislative programs. The boy is committed to an institution where he may be restrained of liberty for years. No other steps were taken to advise them that their son had, in effect, been arrested. Finally, I turn to assess the validity of this juvenile court proceeding under the criteria discussed in this opinion. No. . . MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.This is an appeal under 28 U.S.C. "Lehman, A Juvenile's Right to Counsel in A Delinquency Hearing, 17 Juvenile Court Judge's Journal 53 (1966).

"These are lawyers designated, as provided by the statute, to represent minors.